As always your publication is a fine news source, with the highest standards. I have been a constant reader of your print editions since 1983.
I see no reason to publish the "Readers Comments" if most of them are like the ones shown for this article( Except the first two or three )
which are from persons that appear to be focused on getting the last word in an exchange of ideas that are of no concern for most readers. Can't you filter them and just publish the ones that provide important complementary opinions to the article itself?

You are all wrong, the Supreme Courts decision has nothing to do whether she was guilty or not. All of the Zodiacs victims are 100% sure she was a part of the criminal gang because they talked to her while they were kidnapped!!! Unless all the victims were blind, that sets that Cassez was guilty indeed. The truth is that due to a media disaster caused by the mexican authorities, the evidence proving Cassez complicity was disposed. So she could walk, but even though she cannot be legally convicted, she definitively committed those crimes.

The judges did not declare Mr Cassez as innocent,but irregularities led to her release. The way Mr Hollande is celebrating Mrs Cassez, like she was a superstar is disrespectful to the majority of mexican who believe she is guilty of this terrible crime.

The media, of course, is complicit in all of this. On the one hand, we have seen thousands of “gang members” picked up by the police or the armed forces and hauled in front of the TV cameras, flanked by large unidentifiable police officers (etc) armed to the teeth. We rarely, if ever, find out what happens to most of these people - but, of course, the aim is to create a particular impression. The same thing is done in newspapers – especially local ones – in which people who have been accused of even such minor misdemeanors as, say, spraying graffiti or shoplifting, often on the flimsiest of evidence, are exhibited for all to see. Rarely, if ever, is there any follow-up: those accused are hardly ever given the chance to show their innocence in the same way. If you appear on these pages, you are automatically guilty (even if officially absolved at some point) and your reputation is shot. Most Mexicans probably know people who have been accused (not even by the police) on some trumped-up charge and immediately thrown into jail, languishing there for months or even years before the case is heard – I certainly know several cases involving close friends and members of my family. And it isn’t just because of the sluggish nature of the Mexican penal system, as one or two readers have argued. The fact that so many Mexican judges are unwilling to go any further than “confessions” obtained through all forms of coercion, including torture, is further evidence of this medieval attitude. I would also go so far as to claim that most Mexicans have little or no idea of what is involved in a criminal trial in Mexico. This is clearly not the kind of topic usually considered suitable for mass consumption in the form of cinema or TV programmes which – let’s face it – is where most English-speakers have learned how their penal systems work. For most Mexicans, Presunto Culpable was an eye-opener in this regard. And yet these same people have already condemned a woman accused, on the flimsiest of fabricated evidence, by the most powerful people in one of the richest countries in the world.

I understand the fear and frustration that we all feel here in Mexico when confronted by rampant lawlessness and impunity, but two wrongs do not make a right. Throwing a possibly innocent person to the media lions may provide catharsis for many people, but it is definitely not the solution to Mexico’s criminal justice problems. The fact that the Supreme Court has pointed this out – “haiga sido como haiga sido” – means that there may still be some light at the end of the tunnel. But I’m not holding my breath.

What really saddens me about this whole case is the way so many Mexicans (According to the newspaper Reforma, 83% believe Cassez is guilty) have been manipulated by most of the media acting, as often happens, on behalf of the powers that be. The omnipresent Zerge, responding to this same article, writes “we all know she’s guilty”. Well, no, we don’t “know” Cassez is guilty – that’s the whole point of the Supreme Court’s ruling. I’ve already provided a few snippets from the case that certainly cast doubt on this judgement. In fact, I would say that the odds are that she’s innocent although we’ll ever know for sure, as this corrupted case has now,to all intents and purposes, been thrown out - which is what should have been done from the very beginning. The fact that it wasn’t shows that either the justice system is seriously flawed or – more likely – that it is not really independent and is subject to the whims of the executive branch of government.
Let’s be honest – the whole thing was a set-up organized by the ex-Secretary of Public Security to show that the wonderful police were getting the bad guys. Someone involved in shady business dealings was fingered and suddenly elevated to the rank of leader of a diabolical kidnapping gang. Throw in the evil foreign accomplice (or mastermind) to spice up the mixture and, hey presto, we have a soap opera that most people can probably relate to: burn the bitch (I mean, witch)! This is a classic media lynching as carried out all over the world. By the way, why is it that Cassez was sentenced so quickly when, after 7 years of this circus, her boyfriend Israel Vallarta – supposedly the leader of the gang - has still to be sentenced? The whole thing is, quite frankly, surreal and worthy of Kafka.
It seems to me that Cassez is guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person. From what I can see, most of the evidence that might have supported her defence was thrown out. Only the incriminating evidence, created or modified as required, was used by most of the media – especially Televisa, TV Azteca and Milenio – which is, let’s face it, as far as most people ever go to get their news in any country. The final ingredient in this witch’s brew is this rather odd notion that, if you’re accused of a crime in Mexico – and in spite of what the Constitution says – you really are guilty until proven innocent. Several Mexican jurists have commented that the concept of reasonable doubt does not seem to operate very well here. If there is reasonable doubt, then this means that you have not proven your innocence – not that your guilt has not been demonstrated. As someone said to the protagonist of the film Presunto Culpable, “If you’re here [in jail?], you must be guilty” – or words to that effect. If you cannot prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are guilty.

(As this is a rather long post, I’ve decide to divide it into two shorter ones).

Point taken. We all "think" she´s guilty, then. There are some of us who "think" she is very likely guilty, but that indeed, it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe if I went through ALL the documents in the case, my opinion would change, but for the moment it remains thus: guilty, but unproven so.

Still wrong, zerge. If Reforma's survey is anything to go by, about 10% of Mexicans really believe she's innocent - but these are usually the ones who have not allowed themselves to be blinded by the media blitz and the blatant disregard for due process and any evidence likely to favour the defendant's case.

By the way, you don't have to go through "ALL the documents in the case". All you really have to do (if you're bothered, that is) is to (a) read the article by Héctor de Mauleón (Nexos), who spent over two months poring over these same documents (b) suspend your prejudices while you're doing so. You might also like to take a brief look at Supreme Court Judge Zaldívar's report as it appears on the Supreme Court's page.

The fact is, we cannot know if she is innocent or guilty; that´s exactly why the case was thrown out. You don´t know it, I don´t know it. The only way to know would be to have a new trial, but it´s too late for that.

"She returned to France in the summer of 2005 but Vallarta contacted her and she returned to Mexico to live at his ranch. Cassez found a job in a hotel and looked for an apartment closer to her job.[3]"

"Florence Cassez's arrest took place on Thursday, 8 December 2005 "

"The Mexican Federal Police, which had tipped off several journalists, staged a fake arrest that TV crews from the Mexican networks Televisa and TV Azteca reported live.[3] Three kidnapped victims were freed and four persons—including Cassez—arrested. Cassez was then presented as a member of the kidnapping gang "Los Zodiaco", something she has always denied.[5] Vallarta, who was the leader of the kidnapping band, also stated that Cassez had nothing to do with his kidnapping activity.[6] Mexican public opinion is divided between those who believe she is "undoubtedly guilty," and those who believe the Felipe Calderón administration is using her as a scapegoat"....

I don't understand the excitement in France about her release. She is quite likely guilty of horrible crimes and yet she was welcomed as a hero by politicians from both sides of the aisle - most probably at taxpayer's expense.

The left is praising Hollande for speeding her release. The right is praising Sarkozy for doing all of the heavy-lifting. Each side is pretty much bragging about helping release a potential psychopath.

The "excitement" may have something to do with the fact that the French are probably far more aware of the details of the case than most Mexicans. As Héctor de Mauleón points out in his excellent article "La Verdad Secuestrada" (Nexos, July 2011), which version of the victims' testimony should we accept as the truth: the first, second or third? A mother and her son both fail to recognize Cassez or her voice until after the miserable TV "caught-in-the-act" farce. The son confuses a man (1st decalration) with a woman (Cassez - 2nd declaration). Another victim's recent "scar" supposedly left by a needle used to anaesthetize his finger prior to amputation, turns out to be a birthmark. The room where the victims were exposed to a TV set to a high volume has no electricity. They also identify another place as being the "safe-house". The caretaker is provided by Cassez's boyfriend with a key to the very same room and goes along whenever he likes in order to clean up. The accused has just rented a modest flat as a result of a job she has at a hotel - hardly the kind of place the "leader" of a gang of kidnappers would choose.

To repeat, these, and many other details - not considered by the incredibly incompetent (or complicit) judges all the way up the hierarchy - may possibly have something to do with the French reaction ...

Oh Mexico, Mexico lindo. I thought better of you, and that you had made it to the ranks of respected countries in the world. Who in the XXI century needs to be in good terms with France? If it would be to play good boys with the US (specially for Mexico) or China, I would understand, but France. Hallo!! The Napoleons left for quite a while now.. Florence is lucky she did not do it in Brazil, probably the only country in Latin America, proud enough not to cave in to pressure from any foreign country...

You do not understand Joaquin. This is an extremely painful step towards the right direction. The Supreme Court gave the judicial system a hard slap, signaling that they HAVE to follow due process or face the chance of having their cases thrown out.
Logically it had nothing to do with political pressure. France has absolutely no power to pressure Mexico.

What a shame that France's obvious commitment to justice applies only to white French citizens in foreign tropical countries and not to black French schoolchildren in this tropical French département of Guadeloupe.

In a letter sent to François Hollande last December, I wrote:

"In September 2011, the headmaster (of a local lycée) lodged an official complaint against two journalists of the student magazine, Rebelles, accusing them of having made death threats. In a street demonstration they had carried posters announcing in Creole « chak kochon ni sanmdi a yo » (Every hog will have his Sunday i.e. his comeuppance when he is slaughtered for meat.)

On May 18, 2012, a 17 year old high school pupil at the lycée was summoned by the police for a complaint lodged by the headmaster. Apparently she was accused of making libellous remarks in class.

The police decided to shelve both complaints but while the girl was being interrogated at the police station, violence erupted between police and the crowd of young people who had gathered in front of the police station. In an already politically tense environment, two young Rebelle! journalists must now appear in court in January 2013 accused of offensive language and violence upon police officers.

French justice takes the asinine complaints of a headmaster most seriously yet pupils' accusations of violence at the hands of the same headmaster fail to prompt any reaction from the authorities.

...Are black Frenchmen in Guadeloupe going to be denied the justice which the French in France can take for granted?"

Oh if only they had learned!! What about when they encarcerated Hank Rohn? Mexico's billionair / drug dealer / assasin / many things more owner of the Caliente casinos... Felipe Calderon managed to put him in jail, but the stupid judicial system did things wrongly and the judges were forced to let him free... Florence is another sad, saaaad story of a flawed judicial system... A very, very, very sad day for Mexico...

Kidnapping victims were rescued from the house where she lived; even her parents were photographed there. It was a kidnapping "safehouse". Victims faced her in court proceedings, recognized her and pointed their finger at her. Five members of the Zodiac gang confessed she was a fundamental member of the gang. Due process was violated? Probably. Guilty? For sure. Now she'll get rich by hiring a phantom writer to write a book about her "ordeal" and then will sell the film rights. Why could France stand behind a despicable human being who was so mean to the victims? I cannot get out of my mind images of her torturing victims after they were raped by her boyfriend (and gang leader), because it made her jealous.

Many if not all my friends in Mexico believe Mrs. Cassez is guilty and that she was fully aware and accomplice of all what was happening in her boyfriend's house. Her getting free is a "raison d'état", but it's a pity that such a criminal goes back home free and ready to get rich just because she's citizen of a powerful country. Do you remember that word, colonialism?

I think it wasn't the "ideal" (would've been better to restart the process), but we shall remember that "dura lex, sed lex", and not all people will be happy about decisions taken in tribunals... But it was a sensible decision and even probably a "necessary evil" (the conflict could have lasted another 10 years, and there were diverse political interests at stake by trying to keep this female bum in jail) while we got even bigger issues to deal within our justice system. Whether we like it or not, this is about accomplishing the principle of "due process of law", equally for those being accused.

I think the core matter here is that the Court's decision is a "no mas", to this "improvised" and dirty way of seeking justice by resorting to mass media and using the machiavellian formula of "the end justifies the means" notoriously taken by the Attorney-General who knew about the case (G. Garcia Luna)... So, the real responsibles of justice miscarriage here were mostly the Directors of Telerrisa (sorry, I mean Televisa!), and Mr. G. Luna himself, all these guys who tried to play fools out of us Mexican citizens!

My suggestion? Quit complaining about the case, move on, and keep up with the good work each one of us honest people of Mexico, for working to improve the way of enforcing laws and being the change we want to see in our country, by deeds and not just words! Greetings to my Motherland, from the land of dragons and the Rising Sun...

I am furious that a guilty kidnapper was set free because of violations in the due process.
For the record, I think due process is important and should be followed. However; due process should not be an end in itself to the point that it can supersede a sentence.
The right thing to do here, one that could have been fair to both parties, would have been to re-trial without the evidence obtained illegally.
The confessions from her victims are heartbreaking and they are compounded by the confessions of her associates. These confessions are not considered part of the evidence obtained illegally by the way.
Did she become a criminal only as the result of dating a kidnapper? Most likely, but she could have left the guy as soon as she realized he was trouble. Instead, she elected to stay and actively participate in the process.
France, Florence Cassez is your criminal to deal with now, just like you asked. Be careful what you wish for...

There were a lot of irregularities and lies in the process which eventually led to her release, but in the end she was still involved with a kidnapping gang in Mexico and now she gets to walk free under the powerless look of the people who were kidnapped. A big problem in Mexico is the corruption in the justice system in which government, media and powerful people are involved. It is because of this that a lot of guilty people, like Cassez, get to walk free everyday (and also that many people are wrongly convicted).

Just another in a long list of reasons to never, ever, visit Mexico, a failed state just a few hundred miles from me (I live in Texas, formerly part of Mexico). Not commenting on her guilt or innocence, just that guilt/innocence isn't really a big factor in their justice system (where one is believed guilty until proven innocent).

Yeah, because the American justice system is so much better, you probably believe that the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world means the system works; the guy with the most money always wins in court, and you can get more years behind bars for ilegallly downloading a song than for murdering someone. But hey, justice is justice.

We have the highest incarceration rate due to the failed war on drugs and the fact that private prison companies bribe, er, I mean "lobby" legislators for more "tough on crime" laws to fill up the private prisons they're building.
.
And no, you don't get more jail time for pirating music than killing someone (you get a rediculously large fine), try to stay in reality here.

@Supamark...have you been to Oakland, Compton, Detroit, Flint or the Bronx, New York? I can assure you - large swaths of the US are also controlled by drug kingpins. Cast the first stone.... On another note, who do you think the drugs are for? They aren't making their money in Mexico. Oh, and how do you think so much of these drugs get into the country? You better believe our Coast Guard and Border Patrol are just as corrupt. Do some critical thinking, it might help you clear up some of your unfortunate assumptions.

@Supamark...have you been to Oakland, Compton, Detroit, Flint or the Bronx, New York? I can assure you - large swaths of the US are also controlled by drug kingpins. Cast the first stone.... On another note, who do you think the drugs are for? They aren't making their money in Mexico. Oh, and how do you think so much of these drugs get into the country? You better believe our Coast Guard and Border Patrol are just as corrupt. Do some critical thinking, it might help you clear up some of your unfortunate assumptions.

Yeah, uh, no. I've done some critical thinking and have come to the conclusion that you sound like an Alex Jones accolyte. You also seem to have missed where I commented above on our judicial/prison-industrial-legislative complex where laws are put on the books at the behest of prison companies (look up the lobbying group ALEC) to increase prison population. It isn't "drug kingpins" that run things in the US, it's legitimate businesses that pour money into politicians' pockets to get favorable legislation passed.
.
Yes, the US with its stupid war on drugs is a base cause, but the gov't of Mexico must share blame for how their corruption allows the drug trade and violence to flourish there. I'm saying go to Indonesian style drug laws, but seriously, corruption is a real problem in Mexico. It takes a lot of bribes to get things done, ask WalMart if you don't believe me (or google "walmart mexico bribery scandal" it's recent news).

Florence Cassez was actually pretty fortunate to have been convicted in Mexico, had she been convicted in, let's say, your Texas or in Georgia, he could have gone the way of Michael Morton, Justin Wolfe, David Lee Wiggins or even worse, Carlos DeLuna, Troy Davis, Ruben Cantu or Cameron Todd Willingham.

Not sure what your point is. I don't know if Florence was guilty or innocent of the charges, but what I do know is that the crime she was accused and found guilty of was not a death penalty offence in the US (and not all US states have the death penalty). I would posit that, overall, living conditions in US prisons are better than in Mexican prisons. It ain't no picnic in either though.

My point is that US has no bragging rights when it comes to justice procurement, as it seems to routinely send people to capital punishment on dubious testimonies or bogus science, and Texas seems to be the worst offender.

Just think if Mexico and its "guilty until proven innocent" system had the death penalty...
.
And don't get me wrong, the implementation of the death penalty is deeply flawed in many/most parts of the US but this woman wasn't accused of a crime that could get her sentenced to death in the US. The US justice system is also not what this article was about.

There is not "guilty until proven innocent" thing. This only exemplifies your ignorance. Mexican laws clearly sate that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of the proof rests on the accusatory part. The issues with mexico's legal system (and there are undeniably a lot) are the slow pace at which judicial processes move. The dearth of resources and the slow pace of admission (partly due to this dearth of funds and personnel) of more scientific forensic evidence; but the USA is no example to follow, there seems to be lot of better examples somewhere else.

Stolen? Mexico should have been less arrogant and fought harder if they wanted to keep Tejas. Santa Ana screwed the proverbial pooch on that one. Oh, you don't actually know what you're talking about? Heh, big surprise there coming from a troll.
.
It's a sad and pathetic person who, without any substance to add to a debate, decides to just insult someone they disagree with instead of keeping quiet. Had you not butted in, nobody would know... but now we all know the sort of (anonymous) person/troll you are. Actually assuming that someone from Texas must be a "redneck" even though Texas is quite cosmopolitan (even if the majority of our elected officials are idiots) is just ignorant and says far more about you (and your inability to even troll well) than anything else.

It is truly dismaying that even a consulate can make such an statement as the one above; it just exemplifies the common misunderstanding even among USA elites and politicians when it comes to Mexico. Much ink and words are wasted in the media and among politicians on countries far flung, while in depth analysis of Mexico is woefully lacking, even when the trade flow (just to pick-up a topic) between Mexico and the USA amounts to over 600 billion.

It´s a hard pill to swallow, because she is very likely guilty. But the process was botched. It may seem strange, but on the long run this step will help the justice system in Mexico to get a little better. Cops and judges now know that if they screw up the process, the Supreme Court may throw the case out, regardless of how guilty the accused it.

I hate that she´s being set free, but we need to be intellectually honest about it.
And I find it disgusting that France thinks she´s a poor victim.

The 'exclusionary rule' is controversial even in the US; where this Frankenstein was hatched. Hadn't heard that the Mexicans had adopted it, and don't believe they actually have - except for convenience in this case.

I´m no legal expert, but I do believe the exclusionary rule is part of the Mexican legal system, in theory at least.

I don´t think it was adopted for "convenience" in this case. I do believe the Supreme Court was sending a message to the judicial system: do it right, or we will overrule you and make you look like idiots.

Many critics of this decision don't understand that she's not being set free because she was found not guilty of her charges (she is most likely guilty), she's being set free because her legal rights were violated. This concerns every Mexican living with the corrupt and incomptetent Mexican justice system.